$2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan Opens the Door for Boondoggles by David Montgomery

Share

If reports that President Trump will recommend $2 trillion in infrastructure spending are true, he is once again putting himself in very bad company. The nation does not need and cannot afford that $2 trillion.

The robust growth and high employment the economy is now experiencing is largely due, in my opinion and that of many economists, the aggressive regulatory reform agenda pursued by the Administration and tax reductions designed and pushed through by the Republican leadership of the House and Senate. Neither of these would have happened if Donald Trump had not been elected President. But that is where I part company with him on economic policy.

Though it has caused pockets of hurt, it is hard to see that the President’s hard line on trade with China, redo of NAFTA, and trade pressure on Europe have done anything to slow the U.S. economy.  According to most accounts, it is growing about as fast as possible. The last report on wage growth showed substantial increases, supporting growing consumer spending, and business investment remains high. Labor productivity is growing, but the supply of labor with the needed skills and willingness to work is likely the binding current constraint on growth.

In this environment, the last thing the economy needs is an additional $2 Trillion of deficit spending.  The President, as I discussed last week, would like to see this paid for by the Federal Reserve System, and many Democrats also subscribe to the newly fashionable theory on the left that monetary expansion is harmless and a free source of cash for government to spend.  That, as Chairman Powell is well aware, is a recipe for inflation, crowding out of private investment, pressure on the dollar, and another serious economic downturn.

There is no credible evidence that deferred maintenance on highways, railroads, and bridges requires anything near that sum to correct. Many of the inflated claims about the disastrous state of U.S. infrastructure are based on comparison to current federal standards for new construction, not assessments of its physical condition or analysis of the costs and benefits of bringing existing, usable structures up to standards for new bridges and highways.

Even if there were a substantial need for corrective investment and additions that pass a cost-benefit test, the enthusiasm with which the proposed $2 Trillion is greeted by both Republicans and Democrats should be a warning about what it is likely to produce. Current highway spending is allocated to states based on their gasoline and road tax collections, not their need. Regional scale projects, such as improved rail systems, go unfunded while lucky jurisdictions repave and replace structures far more frequently than needed.  Unlucky jurisdictions jump at the idea of a massive infrastructure program funded from general revenues, because no one wants to suffer the pain of trying again to fix the current irrational funding rules.

A $2 Trillion infrastructure program would open the door for boondoggles on a massive scale. Every member of Congress gets a vote, and members of the leadership and appropriations committees get several.  In the current every politician for him/herself environment, that means that at least half the states and half the Congressional districts must receive their share of $2 Trillion no matter how wastefully it has to be spent.

When I was Assistant Director of the Congressional Budget Office, one of my areas of responsibility was transportation programs.  We concluded that in the late 1980s all economically justifiable transportation projects could be funded by the existing transportation budget if the boondoggles could be eliminated – but that to fund them with the current mix of useful and wasteful projects would require doubling the budget.  That experience shaped my attitude toward infrastructure spending.

On a national scale, the Trump Administration and the California governor have wisely cracked down on the immensely costly and technologically challenged high speed rail system for California, but the proponents of high-speed rail have convinced many politicians on both sides that it is just around the corner if we would only spend enough money.  That will be money down the drain, because there is no way that the value of time saved by pushing rail speeds toward 200 mph can be sufficiently large to justify the orders of magnitude higher cost compared to well-run conventional systems or simpler new systems that can provide speeds in the low 100s. The more we spend on HSR, the more we lose, and a $2 Trillion push for infrastructure spending almost guarantees that some with go down that hole.

It is frustrating to see a Republican President promote an arbitrary spending target of $2 Trillion, rather than ask where additional infrastructure investment would have the highest payoff and how much we can afford.  In the last analysis, every dollar spent on an infrastructure project that does not pass an economic test comes out of our pockets, in the form of displaced private investment that would have provided a higher return or higher taxes to support unnecessary projects.  Republicans should remember that, rather than jumping on the bandwagon to get government spending for their favored vote and contribution-generating projects.

David Montgomery is retired from a career of teaching, government service and consulting, during which he became internationally recognized as an expert on energy, environmental and climate policy.  He has a PhD in economics from Harvard University and also studied economics at Cambridge University and theology at the Catholic University of America,   David and his wife Esther live in St Michaels, and he now spends his time in front of the computer writing about economic, political and religious topics and the rest of the day outdoors engaged in politically incorrect activities.

*

Letters to Editor

  1. Michael McDowell says

    Mr. Montgomery’s missives remind me of the old Einstein adage of continually applying the same formula, but expecting different results. I hesitated last week to respond to another of these but this one is a farrago of nonsense and ideological partisanship. Supply sight/monetarist economics has been massively discredited and yes, Keynes is back. The whole Laffer Curve/tax cuts produce major growth, etc myth keeps coming back from Montgomery and the gladly departed Paul Ryan, budget genius (not) of the Republicans.

    The gloomy old farts of Von Mises and Hayek kept this refuted theory on life support at the below=par Austrian school of economics at George Mason University, massively funded by the Koch Brothers who just love those corporate and high roller tax breaks which make them so rich. This nonsense of cutting taxes and expecting major growth was a total disaster recently in GOP majority Kansas under the failed and now departed Governor and former Senator Brownback. The Republican legislature had to deal with the ruin of public schools and more and put taxes back up! Then of course we have deficit hawk hypocrites like Trump chief of staff and one-time budget/deficit hawk Mick Mulvaney (an Andy Harris hero and mate in Congress) who now says deficits don’t matter! This is followed, reliably, by another party-before-county hack in Mitch McConnell, who has the barefaced gall to call for massive cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc…..to make up for the massive trillion dollar deficit Trump and he created! The sheer chutzpah is stunning.

    And any growth which continues FAR predates the economically illiterate Trump and was put in place by Obama who by saving the economy with a moderate stimulus after the Lehman Brothers, et al, disaster, prevented a mirror disaster of 1929. Then the self declared genius in the White House put up idiots Cain (accused of multiple cases of harassment of women) and the none too clean and intellectually dishonest Stephen Moore, Wall Street Journal editorial writer and zealot. I don’t take Trump at his word on infrastructure. He has been saying this for two years without result and when he had a GOP House! The Dems should make damn sure that any infrastructure plan is not cherry picked to favor GOP states and starve Democratic ones, for that is what the GOPers would like to do. Montgomery’s “concern” about boondoggles would be better directed at the tax giveaway. Hell, most companies used the tax windfall to buy back their own stock, not hire huge numbers of new workers. Fact. But then in Mr. Montgomery’s world, ideology trumps (pun intended) facts and evidence. I can’t believe even Adam Smith, never mind any recent economic Nobel Laureates, would fall for the voodoo economics of Mr. Montgomery.

  2. Deirdre LaMotte says

    Well, how about a trillion dollar tax cut for the super rich?! Oh, the “deficit hawk Republicans” already supported that. Imagine that!
    And it passed their “economic test”……. but anything that could put Americans to work improving our roads, etc. and high speed rail that
    civilized nations have? Never!!

Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article

We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.
×
×
We're glad you're enjoying The Chestertown Spy.

Sign up for the the free email blast to see what's new in the Spy. It's delivered right to your inbox at 3PM sharp.

Sign up here.